On 7/24/14, 11:30 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, 24 July 2014 at 01:39:01 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
Keep in mind, though, that due to current AA changes in 2.066 beta,
existing code WILL break unless we autogenerate opEquals to be
opCmp()=0. In fact, issue 13179 was originally filed because 2.066 beta
broke Tango. My current stance is that these AA changes are an
improvement that we should keep, so then the question becomes, should we
break code over it, or should we introduce opEquals = (opCmp()==0),
which would allow existing code *not* to break?
Can we just adjust the AA implementation so that it uses lhs.opCmp(rhs)
== 0 if opEquals isn't defined and produces a deprecation warning about
that? That way, we avoid immediately breaking folks, but we still move
towards requiring that they define opEquals.
I like Daniel's idea to auto-define opEquals as a field-for-field
comparison. -- Andrei
